Flying IMC out of CAS now dangerous?

[Wrong Stuff]

Would it be a great imposition on the gliding community to stipulate that flight in cloud is either carried out with a working mode C/S transponder OR in receipt of a service from a radar-equipped ATC unit? That way, at least other aircraft can be warned of their presence and kept clear of the aircraft (or area if a reliable return isn't being received). Obviously this isn't a perfect answer but it seems a reasonable compromise which would work fine in the vast majority of cases and would mitigate the accusation that other's lives are being gambled with.

[cats_five]

It's not that glider pilots don't want flying to be safer. If that was the case none of us would be buying Flarm units.

The problems are that 1) fitting a transponder to a great many gliders is very problematic from a number of practical points of view (which have been explained at length earlier in this thread), and 2) the cost is a lot for most of us both in terms of a percentage of the hull value (33% in my case) or of a year's flying (300% in my case). Remember my glider is an above-average value at my club, so the proportional figures will be worse for many other pilots.

You know perfectly well there might be gliders inside clouds without transponders, and unless regulations chance that will continue to be the case. The regulations might change, but that's for the future.

So, if you want to be as safe as possible in the meantime, it strikes me there are three things you can do to mitigate the risks:

1) avoid flying inside clouds. It's almost free and the PAX get a much better view as well.
2) monitor 130.4 and use it to try to establish if there are gliders inside the cloud you want to fly in. Again it's free.
3) get yourself one of the standalong Flarm units, currently just over £500 for a Swiss Flarm which is stand-alone and can be mounted using Velcro. If you don't have a suitable power outlet in your plane you could use a small rechargeable battery. If I could buy and fit a transponder for that sum I would, and so would most other glider pilots that fly XC. If it was that sum and that easy I would have no problem with a transponder being mandated for cloud flying.

Finally, did you report the incident to the AirProx board?

[Final 3 Greens]

Not above 1,000 feet would be even better, on reflection.

[Fuji Abound]

1) avoid flying inside clouds. It's almost free and the PAX get a much better view as well.
2) monitor 130.4 and use it to try to establish if there are gliders inside the cloud you want to fly in. Again it's free.
3) get yourself one of the standalong Flarm units, currently just over £500 for a Swiss Flarm which is stand-alone and can be mounted using Velcro. If you don't have a suitable power outlet in your plane you could use a small rechargeable battery. If I could buy and fit a transponder for that sum I would, and so would most other glider pilots that fly XC.

Well we are just going round in circles.

The answer is simple.

The glider community should write to a company like TRIG and see if a self contained transponder can be developed for around £1,000. If it can they should petition the CAA to allow fitting and to be allocated a dedicated code. Job done.

If such a unit cannot be developed or approved then the glider community is entitled to say we have tried, we have made an effort to properly regulate our sport.

In the mean time I shall be writing to the CAA and EASA pointing out that the practice of gliders operating in cloud is an en route hazard to every other airspace user and they should introduce regulation without delay.

[PPRuNe Radar]

In the mean time I shall be writing to the CAA and EASA pointing out that the practice of gliders operating in cloud is an en route hazard to every other airspace user and they should introduce regulation without delay.

Powered aircraft can also operate in cloud without a transponder

But be careful what you wish for, since maybe EASA will ask the UK to go down the route of many other countries and remove the right to the freedoms to fly in Class G in IMC. More Controlled Airspace and more rules would be inevitable, i.e IMC flights would be operating under IFR and therefore an ATC clearance would be required

[Pace]

1) avoid flying inside clouds. It's almost free and the PAX get a much better view as well.

Not usually possible in the UK at least 80 percent of my flights are in IMC

2) monitor 130.4 and use it to try to establish if there are gliders inside the cloud you want to fly in. Again it's free.

Normally too busy talking on other frequencies but if those frequencies are to be closed thats something we could do.
Maybe gliders could give positions and blocks to London Info. When IMC or flying above 4000 feet? As London Info could pass on that information.

3) get yourself one of the standalong Flarm units, currently just over £500 for a Swiss Flarm which is stand-alone and can be mounted using Velcro. If you don't have a suitable power outlet in your plane you could use a small rechargeable battery. If I could buy and fit a transponder for that sum I would, and so would most other glider pilots that fly XC. If it was that sum and that easy I would have no problem with a transponder being mandated for cloud flying.

Happy to do that if gliders self regulate that ALL gliders flying IMC have to have a working FLARM fitted.Some do some dont is NOT good enough.

Finally, did you report the incident to the AirProx board?

I made a CHIRP report and have been encouraged to go much further by them.

But then maybe its better to forget it take the risk hope it will never happen again than upset our gliding brothers.

I was two minds about posting here because I am really not against gliders and the animosity makes me wonder why I did?

More than anthing hope there never is a collision OCAS with a CAT then we all loose our freedoms as fast as the gun owners lost theirs.

Pace

[Pace]

Powered aircraft can also operate in cloud without a transponder

I dont think that is a practice widely used and would be frowned upon by most IMCR/IR pilots.

I do not know many IMCR/IR pilots who would oppose compulsory Transponders for powered aircraft in IMC.

Pace

[cats_five]

Fuji, will you make use any of the ideas I've suggested that you can do right now to make your flying safer? Without having to wait for the outcome of writing to the CAA/EASA? If not, why not?

The BGA can write to TRIG (or whoever or indeed all transponder makers) but I doubt that anything suitable will be forthcoming for some time to come. In the meantime, things are what they are. You might as well do what you can now to reduce your risks.

Pace, waiting for the BGA to add Flarm to it's laws & rules is prevaricating with your safety. For all you know the glider you had your scare with might have had one fitted - if you had had one then your incident wouldn't have happened. Also, what would be the point of a glider in Scotland giving London details of where it is? *if* they should be talking to anyone it would be Scottish Information, but not all glider pilots have an RT licence and AFAIK in those without should not talk to ATC except in an emergency. And maybe when your report comes up in CHIRP you'd care to post the URL so we can all benefit? Ditto if it goes through the AirProx process. BTW surely you are unusual in that 80% of your flights are in IMC?

[Rod1]

The PCAS trial result should be known by the end of next week. If it works and I would be surprised if it did not, then we will have a viable, cheap solution.

Rod1

[Pace]

BTW surely you are unusual in that 80% of your flights are in IMC?

I am a corporate pilot rather a weekend fun pilot who only flies if the sun shines through the curtains in the morning.

I would say 80% as an estimate is not far off the mark.
May I add that almost nil % are just in the local area ie most trips are 150 nm + so the chances especially at higher levels of being VMC all the way are small.

The idea of someone in clouds without even a radio is totally unacceptable

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Fuji, will you make use any of the ideas I've suggested that you can do right now to make your flying safer?

Yes, of course. This issue was debated a while ago and I learnt a lot about the behaviour of gliders. 130.4 is always on box 2, and I find it relatively easy to monitor box 2 as I am accustom to working the other frequencies on box 1. Not many pilots like doing it that way I might add.

Yes, I always avoid gliding sites.

I am not about to buy a FLARM unless you convince me most gliders have FLARM fitted - in reality I gather very few do.

I am not about to avoid clouds - and this suggestion of yours is just daft. That said I would rather stay out of clouds, and one of the reasons is I cant trust you lot not to be inside one.

The BGA can write to TRIG (or whoever or indeed all transponder makers) but I doubt that anything suitable will be forthcoming for some time to come. In the meantime, things are what they are. You might as well do what you can now to reduce your risks.

Much of the time I have a ballistic chute, I have TAS, I have mode S, I always try and get a traffic service if anything is remotely on offer, so my conscious is clear if I run into one of you lot, and with any luck my parachute (and perhaps yours) might save the day.

Sadly my perception is it is you lot that arent prepared to do anything - the BRG could but I doubt are words that ring rather hollow with me.

You could require all gliders to be fitted with PCAS - but I doubt you will.

With regret, it is rare to see such complacency and such a lack of willingness to attempt to improve the situation.

I rather hope your activities are restricted by legislation - frankly the only difference it will make to me is to make IFR flying safer, I dont mind being restricted to airways at all if it comes to that, and I dont mind cloud flying being closed if the attitude of those that do is so irresponsible.

I was a supporter of those that campaigned against the general carriage of transponders. I find that I was probably mistaken and swayed by a bunch of people who are more concerned with protecting their rights than enhancing the safety of everyone that uses the air space. I suspect it is your complaceny that will ultimately lead to a restriction of the freedoms we should all be trying to preserve.

Anyway nuff said, I cant add anything more.

Please dont misunderstand me, love gliding, love to see gliders up, even had a couple of flights myself, the last thing I would wish is to see gliding restricted BUT if you cant behave as responsibly as the rest of us, you only have yourselves to blame.

[FullWings]

Pace,

Thanks for the polite reply.

I would argue that it is mostly a matter of how you perceive and manage risk. Aviation is an inherently risky endeavour and in GA, the chances of hitting someone else OCAS & IMC are orders of magnitude less than most of the other things you are exposed to such as CFIT, performance issues, mechanical problems, departure from controlled flight, etc. If you only allowed one aircraft in IMC at any time over the whole UK, it wouldn't noticeably affect the accident statistics in terms of something like fatalities per flying hour.

I would also argue that we (humans) have many incredible inbuilt faculties. Unfortunately, being able to assess risk in complex scenarios is not one of them and this leads to emotional responses to problems which would benefit from more analytical approaches.

I notice from one of your previous posts that:

Normally on this route there are two military units who previously gave an excellent service for the descent OCAS. Both these units were closed at 1700hrs with government cost saving and so called streamlining. Both covered an extensive chunk of OCAS But no longer do so flying in those hundreds of square miles of OCAS you are now on your own.

So you knew that you wouldn't be getting an ATC service, yet took the risk that others, also not in receipt of a service, might conflict with you? This is NOT a criticism - I'd have done the same thing - but you could have reduced the risk by arriving when the units were open and chose not to... Obviously it lay within the bounds of what you felt to be acceptable but I'm pretty sure you didn't make the decision based on a quantative analysis - who does?

Those of us who fly IFR OCAS fly quadrantal rules so that if I am going NORTH WEST at FL65 I know another guy going SOUTH EAST will be at FL55 or FL75 giving us a 1000 foot seperation.

But that only applies in level flight and you've got to cross the other quadrantals on the way up or down. Also it does nothing for people going in the same direction at different speeds. It helps but has limitations. Some years ago someone ran a statistical model and worked out we'd be better off all flying random heights and headings...

In a twin or Biz Jet flying OCAS in IMC we have to have a method of seperation whether that be pilot interpretated seperation using IFR rules and TICAS as well as communication or something???? Other wise we are all flying blind and at risk to each other.

Until we've all got ADS-B, we're stuck with more traditional methods. TCAS is good but, as I have pointed out, was not developed nor intended to be used as a means of separation. It is a last ditch mitigation of a conflict and is not a magic security blanket: I fly all over the world in areas where TCAS is mandated and regularly see other aircraft who do not appear on the display, even though I know they're within the parameters when they should. Of course I'd rather have it than not but I'm aware it's not an 'armour of invincibility'.

'Risk' is an emotive word in today's society - everything has to be done to reduce it, even if the cost/benefit does not add up. Yes, there are many things which carry a certain risk level but unless you can accurately quantify it, you don't know whether it has any relevance. 100% safety is unachievable, unless you lock the hangar doors and throw away the key.

The glider fraternity attitude is we dont owe you any duty of care. We hold grandfather rights going back decades which allows us to fly in IMC and even into CAS. Dont touch our liberties which no other section of GA has and we are not prepared to compromise to do anything to make sharing those clouds safer Who are the arrogant ones the self centred ones? Us or them? Sad thing is we should all be us.

As someone who flies gliders, motor gliders, light aircraft and heavy jets, I feel I can see the issue from several angles. As is usual when different groups interact, it is mostly more about *perception* than reality. Power pilots think glider pilots float around the place, sometimes in clouds, taking unfair advantage of historical exemptions (500ft rule, IMC flight, etc.). Glider pilots think power pilots bore round the sky heads-down in VMC, trailing fumes, expecting everyone else to get out their way. Commercial operators think any form of recreational flying should be banned or at least severely curtailed, so they can go directly from point A to point B.

I appreciate where you're coming from, as you recently had proof that the sky isn't always as empty as it seems. Having a 'It Could Be You!' moment tends to polarize your opinions somewhat!

I think that we are in a transitional period where technology and regulation are catching up with requirements. I'm sure the CAA/EASA want (although they deny it) to know the exact whereabouts of everything larger than a paper dart that takes to the sky. It will probably happen. In the meantime, trying to restrict the freedoms of other airspace users, *without an accurate risk analysis*, understandably gets those 'others' a little hot under the collar. There is far too much of 'but think of the children!...' going on these days outside of aviation, so let's keep it there.

You'll be glad to hear that I have Mode-S and FLARM in my glider and when I fly IMC OCAS, which I do every now-and-then, I have the transponder on 7000 - I agree that every little helps. I don't for one minute *as things are now* think it much alters the *real* (miniscule) risk of collision but it makes me feel better which is a common human failing.

[Pace]

You'll be glad to hear that I have Mode-S and FLARM in my glider and when I fly IMC OCAS, which I do every now-and-then, I have the transponder on 7000 - I agree that every little helps. I don't for one minute *as things are now* think it much alters the *real* (miniscule) risk of collision but it makes me feel better which is a common human failing.

Just to correct a couple of points I had flown this route in the morning both ways. All four trips were filed IFR and in three trips I was routed the way that meant minimal time OCAS for the destination.

Things went wrong on the last evening trip. Firstly mostly after an initial SID out of EGMC I was given radar headings and climbs first to the N/E and then to the North west (correct direction) and then to the South West and then further south to the point that I complained that I was doing a tour of the UK in CAS.

I was then down south of CPT on top of overcast cloud at FL100. Usually fine as Brize have always given an excellent service but London C just said Cleared direct XYZ contact London Info for a basic service.

I didnt want a Basic service and it became apparent that there is now a huge mass of airspace in OCAS with no radar cover other than trying to get one with London Military.

You are correct at some point you have to descend and in OCAS that can be a blind descent. Like many pilots we consider most Gliders to be around the bases of cloud or playing around isolated CU. Hence the second surprise was in pretty solid IMC to meet a glider at 5 to 6000 feet.

As a Heavy Iron pilot you also know that many destinations are OCAS and with NO RAS even for A320 737s etc so it is a misconception held by some in these forums that a collision risk it only between other gliders or light GA.

I fly Citations twins and turboprops in some pretty unhospitable areas as well as some worldwide ferries so far from a "SAFE" obsessed pilot.

The thought of a Glider flying without even a radio in cloud is horrific.

You have gone a long way to making your own Glider as cloud friendly as possible I wish that was the case with all who want to fly IMC. How do you power your own Mode S?

This posting was firstly to warn of the deterioration of RAS OCAS and a growing need for those who fly OCAS to work out a pilot interpretated seperation. the second was to highlight the real risk of collision with a glider at higher levels than percieved.

We may do nothing until the awful day that a jet and glider collide and the Russian Roulette system used at present is exposed to the media. Then as with the gunlaws restrictions would be forced on us all.


Pace

[PPRuNe Radar]

I dont think that is a practice widely used and would be frowned upon by most IMCR/IR pilots.

I do not know many IMCR/IR pilots who would oppose compulsory Transponders for powered aircraft in IMC.

Maybe not, but until it's mandated, there are people who can and do operate without transponders in IMC. Maybe not the majority but they do exist.

As a Heavy Iron pilot you also know that many destinations are OCAS and with NO RAS even for A320 737s etc

Just to be 100% clear, there is no RAS for any traffic in the UK. It's a Traffic Service or a Deconfliction Service, and has been for a few months.

[cats_five]

Fuji, surely the important question is not 'do most gliders have Flarm' but 'do most of the ones I might come across in or near a cloud have Flarm'.

Many gliders never get out of glider range of their launch point, and never fly in cloud (though they will fly near cloud). I can't provide an emprical answer to the second question, but Flarm is becoming more and more popular in the UK and the people getting it are the XC pilots - the ones that you might meet in cloud either because they intentionally cloud fly, or they go wave flying, it goes to rats and closes up so a descent through cloud becomes inevitable. Remember, most of us never ever want to fly in cloud but some of us either suddenly find cloud developing around us or get caught above it.

Pace, as a corporate pilot I would classify you as CA rather than GA so I'm quite surprised to find your original post was in 'Private Flying' - so far as I can tell your nasty surprise happened on a corporate flight. I might not be able to book a ticket on it, but then I also can't hitch a lift on any Cessna (etc.) at my nearest GA airfield just by waving my credit card.

[Pace]

Just to be 100% clear, there is no RAS for any traffic in the UK. It's a Traffic Service or a Deconfliction Service, and has been for a few months

That just shows how stupid things are getting what is wrong with what we had "deconfliction service" sounds like some hospital procedure to clear your bowels

Still dont understand what this is all about other than putting traffic firmly the responsability of the pilot and not the controller.

And now we have ATC streamlining which means close them for 90% of the time

Pace

[belowradar]

Good debate

Can't help thinking of the following analogy....

Why not get up late one night, put on a blindfold and ear plugs and then cross your nearest road without looking or listening.....chances are you will be OK and not hit anything....at least you are managing your own life risks and are a daring road crosser !....then again maybe you will get run over.

[Jim59]

Pace stated that

Already aircraft capable of IFR flight (Gliders are NOT) ...

I must be missing something here. Why are gliders incapable of IFR flight? The relevant rule seems to me to be:

...an aircraft in level flight above 3,000 feet above mean sea level or above the appropriate transition altitude, whichever is the higher, shall be flown at a level appropriate to its magnetic track,...

Since gliders don't do level flight and are either climbing or descending they are in exactly the same situation as other traffic that is climbing or descending. Entirely legitimate.

[Jim59]

A couple of responses to comments in the thread about transponders in gliders…

It is suggested that a low power transponder, such as the Trig, would solve many of the problems.

• It is only approved for use up to about 15,000’. This is because above that altitude the responder signal may be too weak to be detected by secondary radars. Gliders in some areas frequently fly higher so if mandated they would need high power transponders to remain legal with all the implications for size, weight and battery power. I’ve had several glider flights above 15,000’ in recent months, including one to FL195.
• Transponders quote an operating temperature range. In high flights in unheated cockpits the ambient temperature may be outside that range. The consequence is that altitude indications are likely to be incorrect and the responder output not accurately on frequency – if the transponder continues to operate.

It was also suggested that a transponder could be installed off-panel with a dedicated glider code eliminating the need for access during flight; only an on/off switch need be accessible. I have proposed this to the CAA and was advised they have already reserved a squawk code for gliders, but it is not being made available for use yet. Currently they are of the view that transponders should be accessible by the pilot in flight.

[Pace]

I must be missing something here. Why are gliders incapable of IFR flight? The relevant rule seems to me to be:

Jim

You answered your own question . They are not capable of level flight so cannot fly instrument flight rules.

I get your point which seems to be a loophole in the regs and against the meaning of the regs.

Interesting because you are saying that theoretically you could file a suitably equipt glider IFR?


They can fly IMC which is slightly different

Thanks for the info on transponders

pace